LexSPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION & REHABILITATION OFFICER, SAGAR versus M. S. SESHAGIRI RAO & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SPECIAL
LAND
ACQUISITION
&
REHARIUTATION
A
OFFICER, SAGAR
v.
M. S. SESHAGIRI RAO & ANR.
January 31, 1968
(1. C. SHAH AND V. RAMASWAM!, JJ.]
L.Jnd Acquisition Act (I of 1894).-<irant of lend on
surrer.der >n:ithoul compensation-Proceedings under
Latid
Ac1--Con1pensation, how payable.
condition to
AcqUisition
The· Government of ~1ys0rc. granted a plot of land to the respondent~
B
"'·ith the added condition that "in the event of the Government requirini
C
the land for anv reason \vhatsoevcr. ·the grantee shall suncoder the land
to the Government withbut claiming any compensation".
The Govern-
ment acquired the land by adopting tho procedure prescribed by the Laed
Acquisition Act but no compensation wa~ awarded to the grantees for the
land.
The Hi~h Court, in appeal, held that sinee the Government had
failed to exercise the right which it had under the terms of tbe grant and
had acted under the Land Acquisition Act, lhe grantees v.·erc entitled to
compensation :is provided under the Act.
In appeal, this Court.
D
HELD : After ob!aining po~ession of the land in pursuance of statu
tory authority under s. 17 of the Land Acqu;sition Act, the Govemme!lt
could not seek ro exercise the option conferred by the terms of the grant.
The grantees w~rc entitled to iom!JC'0.S3tion for the land of \\o·hich the
OMlcrship v.·as vcs:red in them.
Bu·. in :i''C'i'iing compensation payable to
the ~antces, existence of the condition which severely restricte.d their right
could not be ignored. [894 ll-C]
E
The Act is silc11:
~s to the acquisiti,)n of partial interestc; in Jana but
it cannot be inferred therefrom that interest in ·Jand restricted becau!ie of
the existence of rights of the State in the land cannot be acquired. When
land is notified for acquisition for a public purpose and the State has no
interest therein. market value of the land mus! be detennined and aPPor-
tioned among the persons entitkd to the land.
Where the interest of the
owner is clogged by the right of the Stale, the compensation payable is
F
only th-o market value of that intere,t. subject to the clog. [895 B, CJ
The Coliector of Bon1bay v.
.1\/u\ser,.,·anji Rattt;nji Mirtri &:
Ors.
{ 1955} S.C.R. 131 I, followed.
Attomry-Grnera/ v. De Kayser"s Ro.val Hot<! Ltd., (1920) A.C. 508,
referred to.
Government of Bombay v. Es11fa/i Salebliai.
I.LR. 34 Bom.
618,
G
approved.
Stat,· of Mtulras v. A.Y.S. /'arisuthn NnJnr. [1961] M.L.J. 285. dis-
approved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 335 of
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
November 6. 1963 of the Mysore High Court in Misc. Appeal
No. 293 of 1961.
H
•
L. A. OFFICER V. SESHAGIRI RAO (Shah, J.)
893
A
Niren De, Solicitor-General, R. Gopa/akrishnan and S. P.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Nayar, for the appellant.
Nau;;it Lal and T. S. Ramachandran, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. On April 15, 1952, the Government of Mysore
granted an area of 11 acres and 3 8 gunthas of land situate in
village Hebbyle to the respondents to this appeal. The grant was
made in Form Appendix 'E' to the Mysore Land Revenue Rules
with the added condition that "in the event of the Government
requiring the land for any reason whatsoever, the grantee shall
surrender the land to the Government without claiming any
compensation". On January 11, 1958, the Government of Mysore
published a notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
that the land granted was likely to be needed for a public purpose.
By a subsequent notification made under s. 17 ( 4) of the Land
Acquisition Act, Government dispensed with the enquiry under
s. 5-A of the Act and obtained possession of the land. In assess-
ing compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer did not award
any compensation for the land, and awarded Rs. 1,495 /-
for
improvement claimed to have been made to the land by the gran-
tees.
In a reference under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
the District Court agreed with the Land Acquisition Officer.
In
appeal, the High Court of Mysore set aside the award anJ re-
manded the case to the District Court with a direction to dete!1lline
the compensation payable to the grantees 11nd to dispose of the
case a~cording to law.
T!e High Court observed that since the
Government had failed to exercise the right which it had under
the terms of the grant and had adopted the procedure prescribed
by the LandExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.